Did the State Assembly session misses discussion on the way forward to the Manipur Crisis?

The recent conclusion of the 5th Assembly session of the 12th Manipur Legislative Assembly provided an opportunity for all members, including the 10 MLAs who chose to abstain, to engage in thorough discussions and review the ongoing crisis that has persisted in the state for over nine months. However, upon closer examination of the session’s proceedings and the subsequent reactions from the public and abstaining MLAs, it becomes evident that determining whether the session has charted a path forward in addressing the ongoing crisis is challenging.
While the assembly session allowed for deliberation and review, there appears to be a lack of clarity on whether tangible progress has been made toward resolving the crisis. The reactions from both the public and the abstaining MLAs further underscore this uncertainty.
Overall, while the assembly session provided a platform for dialogue and assessment, it remains unclear whether it has effectively addressed the pressing issues at hand or outlined a viable way forward to mitigate the ongoing crisis in Manipur.
The passing of resolutions regarding the abrogation of the Suspension of Operation (SoO) with 25 armed Kuki groups under the KNO and UPF umbrella, as well as the implementation of the National Register for Citizens (NRC) in the state assembly, is widely perceived as a potential step towards restoring peace by many. However, it’s also evident that the resolution to abrogate the SoO with Kuki armed groups has sparked strong reactions from the 10 MLAs advocating for separate administration, highlighting divisions within the assembly.
During the session, significant discussions took place regarding the crisis’s impact on the state’s economy across various sectors. Congress MLA O. Surjakanta, in particular, provided a detailed analysis of the economic repercussions on individuals ranging from street vendors to large entrepreneurs. While the leader of the house acknowledged and facilitated healthy discussions on the crisis’s economic impact, concrete solutions to address these issues were not readily apparent, leaving many observers feeling unsatisfied with the lack of actionable outcomes.
The recently concluded session of the assembly notably addressed the hardships faced by villagers residing in the peripheral areas between Kuki-inhabited regions and valley areas. However, discussions regarding long-term solutions to these challenges were conspicuously absent, with only interim relief measures for affected individuals being discussed.
Furthermore, the session failed to adequately address the situation in hot spot districts such as Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and Tengnoupal. There was a notable lack of discussion regarding the political climate in these districts, particularly concerning issues like restricted access for certain communities, such as the Meitei community, and forced evacuations affecting communities like the Kuki Zo.
It is concerning that the assembly did not engage in meaningful discussions on restoring normalcy and addressing grievances in these areas, which should be top priorities for achieving peace and stability in Manipur. Instead, the session seemed to lack a comprehensive approach to resolving the ongoing crisis, with grievances from different communities potentially hindering progress.
It is essential for the assembly to prioritize broader discussions aimed at restoring peace, rather than allowing grievances from any specific community to dictate the government’s approach. Addressing the demands of the 10 MLAs advocating for separate administration should also be part of these discussions, as dialogue and compromise are necessary for achieving lasting peace.
Overall, the conclusion of the session leaves little optimism for resolving the Manipur crisis, despite a clear understanding of its widespread impact on the state. There is an urgent need for the assembly to reconvene and engage in more meaningful and inclusive discussions to find a way forward.